Quantcast

Romney criticism of Obama over embassy attacks is reprehensible and disgusting. Do you agree or disagree?

Mopvyto 2012/09/12 23:18:44
You!
Add Photos & Videos


Romney is a big dummy
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Willy 2012/09/13 00:02:09
    None of the above
    Willy
    +25
    No, I disagree and obama is the poster child for reprehensible and disgusting

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Marek Proggy 2012/09/19 21:56:00
    Marek
    +1
    Blaming republicans for high unemployment is such an obvious and lame attempt to shift the blame from o'bumbler where it belongs to the oposition.
  • Proggy Marek 2012/09/20 06:18:24
    Proggy
    Dude c'mon how can you deny it? Republicans just filibustered the Veterans jobs bill for Vets who've returned home from Iraq, and the one's who will be returning from Afghanistan. Why in the Hell would they do that? Because the election is 6 weeks out and they don't want President Obama to have anything resembling a political victory. They don't give a damn about the men and women they've sent to war. It's all about partisan politics with these people. Repugnicans will definitely pay the price for all this in 46 days.
  • Marek Proggy 2012/09/20 23:18:53
    Marek
    +1
    Demoncraps deserve to lose and particulary o'bumbler. OK, why do you think the republicans filibustered the bill? Could it possibly have been loaded with more wealth redistribution schemes? Could it be that Harry Reid refused to put it for the vote and then lied about republicans fibuster?
  • melvin ... Marek 2012/09/20 18:12:25
    melvin taylor
    I do not undersand why people call other names,because they do not agree with their views, this is opinion orientated and you people has the nerve. your republicans voted down a Veterians' Job Bill what would have put many vets to work.(Washington Post). But I did not call you a name. I think I will leave this childrens room and go the adults are.
  • Marisela 2012/09/13 18:04:19
    Agree
    Marisela
    He is just showing his desperation! To come out and criticize the President, using this tragic situation for political points is deplorable. The reports were barely coming in and the story was yet developing. The President is right - Romney shoots before he aims.

    He could have made his point later, once he received all the facts, and it would have been received well, probably bumped his points. Too bad he reacted to soon. He didn't even mention the fallen Ambassador and his staff in this speech. Not very presidential.
  • akgold Marisela 2012/09/13 19:50:26
    akgold
    +5
    WOW!!! Talk about the big lie!
    "He didn't even mention the fallen Ambassador and his staff in this speech"
    The clip was one minute long and the first thirty two seconds were entirely about the victims and their families.
    Why do liberals lie on the same page that holds the evidence that they are lying?
  • jubil8 BN-0 PON 2012/09/13 17:43:22
    Other opinion
    jubil8 BN-0 PON
    +4
    Personally I'm sick and tired of the constant, relentless negative campaign attacks on all sides. Obama said he'd raise the bar; as far as I can see, he hasn't even tried.
  • Marek jubil8 ... 2012/09/16 23:35:14
    Marek
    0bama is raising the bar for the opposition and lowering the bar for himself and his sycophants.
  • ehrhornp 2012/09/13 17:11:42
    Agree
    ehrhornp
    +1
    Just shows that Mitt is incapable of handling the job of president. What an idiot. Shoots first without knowing the facts. The republicans have just become a joke.
  • akgold ehrhornp 2012/09/13 19:13:31
    akgold
    +3
    Obama is the joke, but libs would never admit the truth.
  • ehrhornp akgold 2012/09/13 21:15:04
    ehrhornp
    Did you see the stock market today? Shame GW didn't have such jokes. lol
  • Soundstorm ehrhornp 2012/09/13 22:48:30
    Soundstorm
    +2
    Miss him these past four years?
  • ehrhornp Soundstorm 2012/09/14 00:04:25
    ehrhornp
    +1
    Not at all. I have enjoyed seeing the market come back from the Bush lows of under 7000 to now around 13000.
  • Soundstorm ehrhornp 2012/09/14 00:16:43
    Soundstorm
    +2
    You're only focused on the market? What are you? A heartless Wall Street profiteer who cares nothing about the poor and Main Street America?
  • ehrhornp Soundstorm 2012/09/14 02:32:50
    ehrhornp
    +1
    yes, lol

    A risking stock market shows the economy is improving. Unfortunately under republicans, the stock market tends to go to hell. Why is that?
  • Soundstorm ehrhornp 2012/09/14 02:59:39
    Soundstorm
    +3
    This "rising" is the result of stimulus from the Fed known as Quantitative Easing. This is the third round of intervention by the Fed under Obama called QE3 and amounts to a desperation move by the Fed. The previous two didn't bring any long term improvement to the economy and this one's not likely to either. Like all surges in the securities market investors are just hitching a temporary ride. Our over all economy is still screwed. But this is all beyond your bumper sticker level of thinking.
  • akgold ehrhornp 2012/09/14 01:54:32
    akgold
    +3
    Sorry, the lowest index under Bush was over 8000. It was at 9625 when Obama won the 2008 election. It went under 6700 under Obama.
    The market under Bush went from 8235 to 14164. Almost a 75% increase in six and a half years.
    THEN, the Democratic inspired housing bust hit the economy, which led to the recession and as a result of that the banking crisis.
  • ehrhornp akgold 2012/09/14 02:36:11
    ehrhornp
    The stock market started going down in july 2007 when an accounting rule change was suppose to go into effect. So from that point, where I believe the market was at 14000 it spent the next year and a half falling. You are right. The lows were reached I believe in March 2009, but that was still part of the Bush correction. Notice how it has done since then?
  • akgold ehrhornp 2012/09/14 03:14:01
    akgold
    +2
    It certainly wasn't Obama who brought it back.
  • twocrows akgold 2012/09/14 15:41:57
    twocrows
    here's a FOX Business evaluation, jfwiw:
    http://www.foxbusiness.com/in...
  • akgold twocrows 2012/09/14 22:47:51
    akgold
    +1
    Very funny!!!!! A liberal trying to use a division of 'FAUX News' as a source!
    Conservatives here are always being trashed for using them.
    It is obvious that you did not read the article you cited, OR , totally failed to grasp what was being said.
  • ehrhornp akgold 2012/09/14 21:25:00
    ehrhornp
    Well it sure was not the republicans.
  • akgold ehrhornp 2012/09/14 22:57:57
    akgold
    +1
    Never said it was bright boy.
    Business makes money DESPITE our politicians. It was those one per-center's in the evil corporate world who did it. In your haste to give Obama credit you obviously tripped over the fact that a lot of it came at the expense of working people! That is why we have more unemployed than when Barack took office, that despite the fact that more than four million young people entered their working years during his first term.
    Anyone who wants to claim the Obama is for the little guy deserve to remain the little guy. If he wins WE get the government that YOU deserve.
  • ehrhornp akgold 2012/09/15 00:01:22
    ehrhornp
    lol, I hope you realize that Obama's record of job growth is far better than what GW had during his first term and Obama is doing it with private sector jobs as compared to GW who used public sector jobs.

    You see I am a conservative at least when compared to present day republicans who are phony conservatives. I believe in small un intrusive government. You republicans believe in huge intrusive government. There are many things I have disagreed with Obama with but the fact remains that he will be far better than Mitt whose main goal is to transfer wealth from the middle class to the rich.
  • akgold ehrhornp 2012/09/15 01:22:22
    akgold
    I don't know where you get your numbers from but I am quite sure that more Americans were employed at the end of his first term than the beginning of it. Enough jobs were created to provide openings for those entering the workforce.
    Yeah, I think Bush created some 90,000 jobs in regulatory agencies alone. Sort of makes the left's claim that Republicans only want to gut regulation laughable.
    Obama has shown no understanding of business at any level, or anything but a command economy. Sorry, I can see what the government does now, I do not see bigger government takeover of the economy as anything to want.
    BTW I am not a Republican and from the beginning of this campaign cycle there has been no better choice than Gary Johnson.
  • ehrhornp akgold 2012/09/15 06:31:43
    ehrhornp
    You might want to read the following:

    http://www.salon.com/2012/05/...
  • akgold ehrhornp 2012/09/15 19:13:54
    akgold
    You(and the writer) are superficial, along with being horse's asses!
    Details you both overlook is that the economy was booming so state and local tax revenues were rising very rapidly. Being government they grew spending and workforces rather than giving the excess back to the taxpayers. Property values were soaring increasing that funding stream which was also spent so education spending was soaring during that time. Unlike the liberal bleat that Bush and Republicans were slashing educational funding.
    As for private sector employment, you do realize that the self employed are not included in the employment counts? All those millions who left the work force because times were good and started their own businesses were not counted even though they were most certainly working. Of course I would not expect you or Salon to be interested in telling the full story. I grew up in the Cherry Capital of the World, I can easily spot your cherry picking of details to tell a misleading story.
  • ehrhornp akgold 2012/09/15 20:34:05
    ehrhornp
    Such an intelligent response. Love it when phony conservatives toss out insults. Shows they have no case which you proved.

    Fact remains: There is a number buried in today’s government labor report that deserves closer examination: 35,000. That’s the net number of private sector jobs created during the Obama administration to date. That’s right, it’s a positive number. After the worst economic disaster to befall the United States in 80 years, that’s a number that maybe we should be applauding. Remember: The private sector hemorrhaged more than 2 million jobs in the first three months of 2009 alone. The hole was deep.


    Lets compare Obama’s numbers to George W. Bush’s. In Bush’s first term, the economy shed 913,000 private sector jobs! 913,000! The only thing that saved Bush’s first term from being a complete economic disaster, in terms of employment, was robust public sector growth: The economy added 900,000 government jobs. One wonders: Without the massive growth in the public sector during Bush’s first term, would he have been reelected? Love the government employment do we?

    Do you have any links backing up your statement about private sector employment? Specifically: All those millions who left the work force because times were good and started their own businesses were not counted even though they were most certainly working and how would this be different between the two administrations?
  • akgold ehrhornp 2012/09/16 18:52:47
    akgold
    Ever heard of GOOGLE dumb @ss? Do your own research. It is just like not counting people who have been out of work too long. The people would choke if they realized what the unemployment rate really is. Of course not much chance they will learn it from the MSM.
  • ehrhornp akgold 2012/09/16 19:06:44
    ehrhornp
    lol, just love phony conservatives. Still more insults showing your ignorance and lack of intelligence.

    I did my research. You obviously chose to ignore it. You have yet to provide any links to back up your position.
  • akgold ehrhornp 2012/09/16 19:26:53
    akgold
    If you researched it well you know it is true, otherwise you are a lousy searcher.

    Is "phony conservative" supposed to be an insult? As a libertarian I don't really care what you call me, you do have free speech. Just as I am quite free in saying that you have made it clear you you are a liberal sycophant that will never deal with reality.
  • ehrhornp akgold 2012/09/16 20:23:21
    ehrhornp
    No phony conservative is just telling the truth. Love so called conservatives who supported GW taking us from a surplus to deficits by giving huge tax cuts to the rich, and running two wars off budget. Sure doesn't sound conservative to me. Yes I am a liberal as I believe in freedom and not in big government. Phony conservatives for example needs the government to tell them who they can and cannot marry
  • akgold ehrhornp 2012/09/16 21:06:12
    akgold
    Truth???? Clinton was back into deficit spending by the time he left office.
    You are a liberal POS with your ignorant accusations. I didn't need the government to make any decision for me regarding marriage. I waited til I was forty to marry, even though liberals would support my right to create an unlimited number of children that they will force OTHERS to pay for.
    Don't believe in big government? What a whopper, wipe your mouth after saying such sh1t. You want complete government take over of medicine, you want to tell people what size soft drink they may buy, you want to continue the social security program that pays benefits to multi millionaires and billionaires, plus 80% of their healthcare costs. You welcome the unprecedented people at the government trough and really want to expand their numbers.
    You are, in other words, a waste of bad DNA.
  • ehrhornp akgold 2012/09/16 22:59:15
    ehrhornp
    Prove your statement about Clinton being back into deficit spending.

    Love you calling names again. Thanks for the verification that you are incapable of formulating an argument. Calling people POS is not an argument.

    If you don't need government, then that would make you a democrat. You are obviously not.

    Ah poor phony conservative. When you have a single payor health system, guess what? The cost is far lower than what we have. Remember Romney complimenting Israel for keeping their health costs under control? Tell me why do you think paying double for less favorable outcome is desirable.

    People like you need a huge military industrial complex to protect you from imaginary threats. You also need a large prison industrial complex to also protect you from imaginary threats. You cheered when GW started Homeland security because you were afraid the big bad terrorist is coming to get you. Pathetic!
  • akgold ehrhornp 2012/09/17 07:35:00
    akgold
    You complain about name calling but that is all you do. Hypocritical POS you be. Not one bit of truth in what you wrote, just your projecting. Telling people what they believe when you don't know sh1t is not an argument.
  • ehrhornp akgold 2012/09/17 17:13:48
    ehrhornp
    Thanks for the verification about Clinton being back into deficit spending. Such a great source you provided. lol

    You have not refuted anything I have said. You just call me "POS". Such an intelligent response. Must have taken you hours to think of that response. lol

    I do not name call. Stating that someone is a phony conservative should be a badge of honor for your group as you sure are not true conservatives.
  • akgold ehrhornp 2012/09/16 19:25:12
    akgold
    "and how would this be different between the two administrations?"

    It would not be different the numbers are counted the same way. BUT, what you can not wrap your little mind around is obviously the fact that home values were soaring under Bush giving people lots of equity to borrow against when launching their dreams.
    Values have since crashed and people are lucky to have any equity in their homes, let alone a personal bank to draw from.
  • ehrhornp akgold 2012/09/16 22:42:19
    ehrhornp
    And then the values crashed under the Bush administration. Shame we didn't have a Clinton who remarked that the sad thing was that there was no place else to invest other than the housing market. Worked out so well.

    Value of my home is about where it was prior to the start of the Bush crash so yes, we do have a lot of equity here. Helps when you live in a democratic state.
  • Soundstorm ehrhornp 2012/09/17 03:09:14
    Soundstorm
    Uh....actually it was under the Clinton administration that the values began to crash as a result of his National Homeownership Strategy through the Department of Housing and Urban Development in 1994.
    Your gods have betrayed you again.
  • akgold ehrhornp 2012/09/17 07:40:53
    akgold
    They crashed because dims forced the banks to give loans to people who obviously were going to have trouble paying the off.
    You have the equity, you have the roads and bridges, that is all you need to start a business and put some people to work.
    The big real estate losses were in dinocratic controlled areas. Dumb @ss.
    Deficits under Clinton? GOOGLE it stupid.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/09/21 22:18:40

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals